Advertisement

Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 7–18 | Cite as

Recommendation for land use impact assessment: first steps into framework, theory, and implementation

  • Jane BareEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This article presents research, criteria, framework, and guidance which were developed to provide recommendations for land use impact assessment specific to biofuels, but applicable to a variety of land uses. The criteria for land use modeling were developed along with a 10-step framework including a comprehensive ecosystem services valuation of scenarios. This research program is defined which includes the development of a user-friendly ecosystem services tool with accompanying default values and recommendations on input parameters which are necessary to develop the scenarios, integration curves, maps, and ecosystem profiles of each scenario. Based on these scenarios, curves, maps, and profiles, additional recommendations may be made on land use practices or regional selections. Finally, a discussion of implementation of the theory behind this methodology focuses on an analysis of biofuels.

Keywords

Land use Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) Life cycle assessment (LCA) Sustainability metrics Biodiversity Ecosystem services 

References

  1. Anonymous (2009) Buying farmland abroad—outsourcing’s third wave. EconomistGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer C, Jacobson MZ (2010) Evaluation of global wind power. http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/2004jd005462.pdf
  3. Bare JC, Gloria TP (2006) Critical analysis of the mathematical relationships and comprehensiveness of Life Cycle Impact Assessment approaches. Environ Sci Technol 40:1104–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bare JC, Gloria TP (2008) Environmental impact assessment taxonomy providing comprehensive coverage of midpoints, endpoints, damages, and areas of protection. J Clean Prod 16:1021–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI—the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bockstael N, Freeman AM, Koop RJ, Portney PR, Smith VK (2000) On measuring economic values for nature. Environ Sci Technol 34:1384–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boumans R, Costanza R (2007) Multiscale Integrated Modeling of Ecosystem Services (MIMES): Ecosystem Services Program seminar seriesGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2005) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Brand G, Braunschweig A, Scheidegger A, Schwank O (1998) Weighting in ecobalances with the ecoscarcity method—ecofactors 1997, BUWAL series 297Google Scholar
  10. Campbell JE, Lobell DB, Genova RC, Field CB (2008) The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environ Sci Technol 42:5791–5794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farberk S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J, Raskin R, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 357:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Covey S (1989) The 7 habits of highly effective people. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Daily GC (ed) (1997) Nature’s services—societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Daily GC, Matson PA (2008) Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9455–9456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Groot RS (1992) Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision-making. Wolters Noordhoff BV, Groningen, 345 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson MA (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41:375–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Federal Register (2009) Regulation of fuels and fuel additives: modifications to renewable fuel standard program requirements, June 24, vol 74, no 120Google Scholar
  18. Finnveden G, Hofstetter P, Bare J, Basson L, Ciroth A, Mettier T, Seppala J, Johansson J, Norris G, Volkwein S (2002) Normalization, grouping, and weighting in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. In: Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klopffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Muller-Wenk R, Olsen S, Pennington D, Potting J, Steen B (eds) Life Cycle Impact Assessment: striving towards best available practice. SETAC, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  19. Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (2009) FAPRI 2009 US and world agricultural outlookGoogle Scholar
  20. Gloria TP, Lippiatt BC, Cooper J (2007) Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally preferable purchasing in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 41:7551–7557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The eco-indicator 99: a damage orientated method for life cycle impact assessment. The Hague, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products, vol 2. Scientific Background, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Hauschild MZ, Potting J, Hertel O, Schopp W, Bastrup-Birk A (2006) Spatial differentiation in the characterisation of photochemical ozone formation—the EDIP2003 methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo De Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992a) Environmental life cycle assessment of products: guide and backgrounds (part 1) Leiden. CML, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  25. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo De Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992b) In CML (ed) Environmental life cycle assessment of products: guide and backgrounds (Part 2). CML, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  26. Hertwich E (1999) Value judgements and the public right—rebuttal to Marsmann et al. on ISO 14042. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment gate to EHS: global LCA villageGoogle Scholar
  27. Hertwich E, Pease W (1998) ISO 14042 restricts use and development of impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:180–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Imhoff M, Elvidege C, Mayhew C, Simmon R (2010) Nighttime view of the earth. http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/WindPower/ResourceMap/index-world.html. Accessed 25 Mar 2010
  29. Itsubo N, Inaba A (2003) A new LCIA method: LIME has been completed. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jack Ruitenbeek H (1995) Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making: Rudolph S. de Groot. Wolters-Noordhoff, Amsterdam, 1992. 315 pp. ISBN 90-01-35594-3. Ecol Econ 14:211–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koellner T, Scholz RW (2007) Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment—part 1: an analytical framework for pure land occupation and land use change. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koellner T, Scholz RW (2008) Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment—part 2: generic characterization factors for local species diversity in central Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:32–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindeijer E, Muller-Wenk R, Steen B (2002) Impact assessment of resources and land use. In: Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich EG, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klopffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer EW, Muller-Wenk R, Olsen SI, Pennington DW, Potting J, Steen B (eds) Life Cycle Impact Assessment: striving towards best available practice. SETAC, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  34. Marsmann M, Ryding SO, Udo de Haes H, Fava J, Owens W, Brady K, Saur K, Schenck R (1999) Letters to the editor—in reply to Hertwich & Pease. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(4):180–181. ISO 14042 Restricts Use and Development of Impact Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:65Google Scholar
  35. McCarl B (2009) Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM): model description. http://agecon2.tamu.edu/people/faculty/mccarl-bruce/FASOM.html. Accessed 30 July 2009
  36. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being—a report of the millennium ecosystem assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green R, Lehner B, Malcolm T, Ricketts T (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9495–9500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2009) MODIS—Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer. http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/. Accessed 30 July 2009
  39. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2010) NASA surface meteorology and solar energy. http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sse/. Accessed 25 Mar 2010
  40. National Research Council of the National Academies (2004) Valuing ecosystems services toward better environmental decision-making. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Natural Capital Project (2009) Aligning economic forces with conservation. http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/toolbox.html
  42. Nelson E, Polasky S, Lewis D, Plantinga A, Lonsdorf E, White D, Bael D, Lawler J (2008) Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9471–9476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron DR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw MR (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Norris G (2003) Impact characterization in the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts—methods for acidification, eutrophication, and ozone formation. J Ind Ecol 6:79–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pearson T, Walker S, Brown S (2005) Sourcebook for land use, land-use change and forestry projects. Winrock International, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, Wagner F (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry: IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Intergovermental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  47. Ricketts T, Ennaanay D (2009) InVEST: a tool for mapping and valuing hydrological and other ecosystem services. In: US EPA webinar for Ecosystem Services ProgramGoogle Scholar
  48. Steen B (1999a) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in products development (EPS). Version 2000—general system characteristics—CPM report 1999, vol 4. Chalmers University of Technology, GotheburgGoogle Scholar
  49. Steen B (1999b) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in products development (EPS). Version 2000—models and data—CPM report 1999, vol 5. Chalmers University of Technology, GotheburgGoogle Scholar
  50. Sutton P, Costanza R (2002) Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation. Ecol Econ 41:509–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Toffoletto L, Bulle C, Godin J, Reid C, Deschenes L (2007) LUCAS—a new LCIA method used for a Canadian-specific context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Turner WR, Brandon K, Brooks T, Costanza R, da Fonseca GAB, Portela R (2007) Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 57:868–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. United Nations (2010) Global biofuel map. http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/kick/ebook.aspx. Accessed 25 Mar 2010
  54. U.S. Department of Agriculture (1997) Predicting soil erosion by water. A guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE)—agricultural handbook # 703Google Scholar
  55. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2001) NCRS irrigation handbook part 652—national irrigation guide template—PB2001-104348Google Scholar
  56. US Department of Agriculture (2009) NRCS pest management policy and supporting documents—general manual title 190. Ecological Sciences Division, part 404—pest managementGoogle Scholar
  57. US Department of Agriculture (2010) Global desertification vulnerability map. http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/desert.html. Accessed 25 Mar 2010
  58. US Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (2006) Model simulation of soil loss, nutrient loss, and change in soil organic carbon associated with crop production, pp 114, 171Google Scholar
  59. U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (2010a) Geospatial data gateway. http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed 25 Mar 2010
  60. U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Services (2010b) Global population density map. http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/popden.html. Accessed 25 Mar 2010
  61. US Department of Energy (2010) Wind power classification in US. http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp. Accessed 25 Mar 2010
  62. US Department of Energy–Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2009) EPA’s proposed renewable fuel standard tackles GHG emissions. EERE Netw NewsGoogle Scholar
  63. US DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2010) Photovoltaic solar resource of the United States. http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_pv_national_lo-res.jpg. Accessed 25 Mar 2010
  64. US Environmental Protection Agency–Office of Transportation and Air Quality–Assessment and Standards Division (2009) Draft regulatory impact analysis: changes to renewable fuel standard programGoogle Scholar
  65. US Geological Survey (2010) Water use data in US. http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2000/. Accessed 19 Jan 2010
  66. US Government (2007) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007—public law 110-140-Dec. 19Google Scholar
  67. Wenzel H, Hauschild M (1997) Environmental assessment of products, vol 1: methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  68. Winrock International (2010) Winrock International. http://www.winrock.org/index.asp. Accessed 25 Mar 2010
  69. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Sustainable Technology DivisionUS EPA Office of Research and DevelopmentCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations